But what did you intend as a definitive threshold? To ensure accuracy for any important decision it would have to be around 90%. Surely if one person raises a valuable point, and one that is worth voting 'not yet' for, at least 10% will follow. But 90% will help reduce the effect of mild sockpuppet use etc. Then again, if we allow experienced users to strike votes, we should be going for 95%...
On 9/3/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
On 9/1/06, Angela wrote:
On 9/1/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
User voting, whether by poll or by discussion until one side stops discussing (aka, into the ground), is original research. So, yes, consensus applied this way should die.
Perhaps consensus polling should be tried instead.
Perhaps we should stop calling it consensus in those places where there is no desire to find a solution everyone can agree upon.
The main problem is that it is still original research. That's fine for a group of experts deciding whether to call Pluto a planet, call it something else, or to simply describe it without any name. In terms of the encyclopedia, it leaves the decision to the editors, not the sources.
I do like the Yes/Not Yet concept. I wish that a definitive yes/not yet threshold would be defined in determining whether something is sourced (and therefore can be included in the article) or not yet adequately sourced (and therefore left out).
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow--
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l